View Single Post
  #142  
Old 04-25-2013, 2:53 AM
kcbrown's Avatar
kcbrown kcbrown is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,097
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by navyinrwanda View Post
[*Content-neutral time, place and manner regulations also cannot be arbitrary or irrational. They must further an important government interest in a way that is substantially related to that interest. Hopefully, similar regulations on Second Amendment activity will receive similar judicial scrutiny.]
Yes, but can it, for instance, require an "elevated need" on the part of every person who wishes to exercise it in public? Can it require that all who wish to exercise it be able to show greater than average ability in some fashion? No other right is treated in that way, but I have no trouble believing that the judiciary will insist on treating this one thusly.

Is preventing exercise of a right itself a valid "important government interest", most especially when misuse of that right can cause grievous harm or death?


I am incredibly skeptical of the application of intermediate scrutiny to the right to keep and bear arms, because the very things the right purports to protect are by design dangerous. If "public safety" is the "important government interest" and direct interference with the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is substantially related to that interest (and if one ignores the fact that criminals by definition spit in the face of the law, then how can one argue that it is not?), then there is absolutely no hope for the right if intermediate scrutiny is the standard of choice to use for deciding whether or not a given law is valid in the face of the right.

And note that scrutiny is itself a means by which the judiciary decides, on a case by case basis, whether the right is really worth insisting upon. I fully expect that the wording for that was merely the Supreme Court waxing poetic, and that it didn't really mean what it said. And in my mind, that casts grave doubt upon whether the Supreme Court meant any of what it said in Heller, save for the "longstanding prohibition" language and "sensitive places" language (i.e., the language which would uphold restrictions on the right).
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional.

The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why.

Last edited by kcbrown; 04-25-2013 at 2:56 AM..
Reply With Quote